Urban sustainability remains one of the most pressing challenges facing contemporary societies, demanding innovative governance frameworks that transcend traditional planning paradigms. In a recent breakthrough published in npj Urban Sustainability, researchers Rodela, Williams, Ohlsson, and their colleagues introduce a transformative approach centered on care-centric planning and governance. Their work delineates six carefully articulated propositions designed to fundamentally reorient how cities are designed, managed, and sustained in the face of mounting ecological, social, and economic pressures. This care-centric framework offers an insightful blueprint to reshape urban futures grounded in principles of empathy, inclusivity, and long-term stewardship.
At the heart of this novel approach is the recognition that cities are not merely physical infrastructures or economic engines but complex socio-ecological systems where human well-being and environmental integrity are deeply intertwined. The authors argue convincingly that conventional urban planning tends to prioritize efficiency and growth metrics at the expense of social equity and ecological care, leading to fragmented governance systems incapable of addressing systemic vulnerabilities. By adopting a care-centric lens, urban policymakers can cultivate a governance ethos that attends to diverse stakeholder needs while nurturing resilient urban ecosystems.
The six propositions put forward by the research team serve as pillars supporting this new governance model. They encompass the acknowledgment of care as a vital urban value, incorporation of care practices into policy and planning processes, fostering participatory governance structures, embedding long-term ecological considerations into decision-making, enhancing intersectoral collaboration, and promoting adaptive governance mechanisms. Each proposition is substantiated with rigorous theoretical analysis and empirical case studies, demonstrating tangible pathways for operationalization in diverse urban contexts.
Critically, the first proposition situates care not as a peripheral concern but as a foundational principle shaping urban governance. This redefinition challenges entrenched paradigms by asserting that care—spanning social welfare, environmental stewardship, and cultural preservation—must be explicitly integrated into planning frameworks. The authors emphasize that recognizing care as a core value transforms urban governance from transactional interactions into relationships rooted in responsibility, care, and mutual accountability among city dwellers and institutions.
Building on this, the second proposition champions the integration of care practices into policy instruments and planning methodologies. This entails the deployment of tools that operationalize care principles, such as inclusive needs assessments, impact evaluations sensitive to vulnerable populations, and design strategies that enhance social cohesion and environmental health. The research highlights innovative pilot programs where such integration has led to measurable improvements in urban livability and resilience, underscoring the practical implications of care-oriented planning.
The third proposition advances the importance of participatory governance models that ensure meaningful citizen engagement throughout planning and implementation stages. The authors underscore that care-centric planning disrupts top-down decision-making by democratizing urban governance, enabling diverse voices—including marginalized communities—to shape urban trajectories. This inclusive governance not only bolsters social equity but also enriches plan quality by incorporating localized knowledge and lived experiences which traditional expert-driven models often overlook.
Embedding ecological foresight into urban governance forms the cornerstone of the fourth proposition. This demands a proactive orientation toward sustainability, whereby long-term environmental impacts are systematically anticipated and internalized within governance processes. The authors adeptly unravel complex ecological considerations, such as biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation, and resource circularity, illustrating how care-centric governance reconciles urban development goals with the imperative of planetary boundaries.
Fostering intersectoral collaboration constitutes the fifth proposition, addressing the often siloed nature of urban governance institutions. The research argues that effective care-centric governance requires breaking down institutional barriers to enable cross-sectoral coordination among public agencies, private actors, civil society, and academia. By facilitating knowledge exchange and joint problem-solving, such collaboration emerges as a catalyst for integrated urban solutions that are sensitive to multifaceted social and ecological dynamics.
The final proposition focuses on adaptive governance mechanisms that prioritize flexibility, learning, and responsiveness amid urban complexity and uncertainty. Recognizing that cities are dynamic and evolving systems, care-centric governance calls for feedback loops and iterative policy adjustments that can address emergent challenges and evolving community needs. This adaptive approach enhances the resilience and sustainability of urban systems by embedding reflexivity into governance processes rather than relying on static plans.
Combined, these six propositions carve out a comprehensive framework that challenges orthodoxies in urban planning and governance. The research underscores that adopting a care-centric orientation disrupts dominant growth-centered models by reweaving social and ecological considerations into the fabric of urban governance. Such a paradigm shift promises transformative potential for creating cities that are not only economically productive but also just, livable, and ecologically vibrant.
Technically, the authors integrate interdisciplinary insights from urban studies, environmental science, sociology, and political theory to ground their framework. For instance, they draw on theories of relational care from social sciences to explicate the social dimensions of care, while incorporating ecological resilience concepts to address environmental sustainability. This fusion of diverse analytic lenses enriches the propositions and equips city planners and policymakers with sophisticated conceptual and operational tools.
Empirical underpinnings of the framework include analyses of varied urban cases where care-centric initiatives have been piloted or naturally evolved. These case studies reveal both challenges and successes in embedding care into urban governance, such as negotiation of conflicting interests, capacity constraints, and the need for institutional innovation. Importantly, the authors emphasize that care-centric governance is not prescriptive but contextually adaptable, allowing for localized interpretations and implementations responsive to specific urban trajectories.
Moreover, the paper acknowledges potential critiques and risks, such as co-optation of care rhetoric without substantive institutional change or the possibility of added bureaucratic complexity. The researchers advocate for critical reflexivity and vigilance to ensure that care-centric governance maintains integrity as a transformative practice rather than becoming a tokenistic label. In this regard, the role of civic education and sustained social mobilization emerges as crucial complements to institutional reforms.
The implications of this research resonate deeply within global debates on urban sustainability and justice. With rapid urbanization intensifying social inequalities and environmental degradation worldwide, care-centric planning offers a normative and practical compass for navigating these intertwined crises. It aligns with emerging global discourses on just transitions and rights-based urbanism, thereby enriching international policy dialogues and action agendas.
Looking ahead, the authors call for further empirical research to test and refine the care-centric propositions across diverse geographical and socio-political contexts. They also urge the integration of digital and data-driven technologies as potential enablers of care-oriented governance, provided these tools are employed with ethical foresight and inclusivity. This forward-looking agenda positions care-centric governance at the frontier of innovative urban sustainability science.
In conclusion, the seminal work by Rodela, Williams, Ohlsson, and colleagues asserts a bold reimagining of urban governance through the lens of care. Their six propositions articulate a compelling vision for cities that nurture human and ecological well-being symbiotically, grounded in participatory, adaptive, and intersectoral governance principles. As cities worldwide grapple with unprecedented challenges, embracing care-centric planning could unlock pathways toward truly sustainable, equitable, and resilient urban futures, marking a pivotal evolution in the science and practice of urban sustainability.
Subject of Research: Care-centric planning and governance frameworks for promoting sustainable cities
Article Title: Six propositions for care-centric planning and governance that promote sustainable cities
Article References:
Rodela, R., Williams, M., Ohlsson, J. et al. Six propositions for care-centric planning and governance that promote sustainable cities. npj Urban Sustain 5, 21 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-025-00214-y
Image Credits: AI Generated
